Left Field Cinema

He is one of the most famous Polish directors in the world, only superseded in this regard by Roman Polanski whose American work and controversial life has made his name the first to appear in a cinema goers mind when asked about Polish film makers. But in my personal opinion Krzysztof Kieslowski is the superior artist, and another of my top five directors. In this series of episodes I hope to examine all ten of Kieslowski’s films and his remarkable television series Dekalog in no particular order starting here with his third feature film shot in 1981.

The plot follows Witek played by Boguslaw Linda, a medical student who one day is rushing to catch a train, he’s very late and consequently has to run down the platform if he is to have a hope of boarding, the train pulls away from the platform and it is completely touch and go as to whether Witek will make it or not. From this one event three alternative timelines are presented to us, the first where Witeck catches the train and meets a kind hearted communist which leads to him becoming a party activist. In the second timeline Witeck collides with railway guard while running and instead of catching the train he is arrested for assault, as a result he meets a woman from the opposition and consequently becomes a member of their group in the third timeline he also doesn’t catch the train but this time doesn’t get arrested either, in this contingency he discovers a woman from his studies who has been waiting to say good bye to him at the platform, a romance blossoms and they marry, he returns to his medical training and has no political affiliation.

As described the film is examining how a single event (even an innocuous one such as catching a train) can irrevocably alter ones life forever. In this case each result of the train station scene sets Witek on vastly differing paths. This was the first of many examples where Kieslowski merged reality with the fantastic and as with every other occasion Blind Chance merges the two simply and seamlessly. His previous two fiction films, The Scar and Camera Buff were both played straight but here time is rewound twice and life is played out three times. Kieslowski also wrote the film and rather than opt for a structure which jumps between all three timelines (perhaps with a stylistic anchor of some description) he instead chose to present each story in its entirety, one at a time. This presentation is quite striking and completely at odds with the more modern approach to such stories, Peter Howitt’s 1998 film Sliding Doors for example which hinges itself on the similar fork in the timeline (and in fact as a result of the same seemingly unimportant factor – whether Gwyneth Paltrow’s character Helen makes it onto her train or not) but Sliding Doors cuts back and forth between the two timelines with only Paltrow’s alternate haircuts allowing for easy differentiation. Howitt’s choice allowed him to maximise the impacts of each event as it is mirrored or not in the second timeline. However in Blind Chance the timeline’s are completely different, different locations, different casts and characters (except Witek) so to intercut between the three would prove possibly too confusing, maybe downright impossible to follow. Later in his career Kieslowski would again present alternate realities with a more ambiguous instigating and prevailing force in The Double Life of Veronique, there to he would choose to present each story in its entirety rather than cross cut them together. In both films his decision pays off, it may be seen as a loss of dramatic potential by some (The Hours for example is an excellent example of how cross cutting can maximise the drama in this type of multi-stranded narrative) but this loss is in return for a far clearer a complete view of the film. When the second timeline begins we instantly see how Widek’s life has radically changed, going to the opposite end of the political spectrum. We can also assess Widek’s character with greater ease, and despite the obvious distinctions between the first two timelines, his personality remains the same to a certain extent. He is temperamental and at odds with his world, things fall apart for him in terms of romance, there are two potential partners for Widek in both timelines one is an old flame from his youth the second is the sister of a childhood friend. Both romantic entanglements fail, likewise both of his chosen occupations fail. But by the time we reach the third story line we can really see the difference, here Widek is instead completely at home both literally and metaphorically. He marries, settles down, has children, becomes a doctor and is far more successful, stable and content than his parallel counterparts. The misery at both ends of the scale for Widek in timelines one and two is then totally contrasted by the happiness of timeline three.

The films structure unfortunately contributes to a rather messy sense of narrative in the first timeline which is effectively the whole of act one. Up to the first rewind and the beginning of timeline two, it isn’t clear where the story is going or the relevance of any of the films numerous events up to this point. Kieslowski had remedied this problem to a certain extend with the films prologue which through a bizarre set of images which without cuts blend first person and third person point of view shots and present a series of distinctive and brief scenes. This prologue acts as an anchor for the narrative as each scene in the prologue is then resurrected for extra resonance throughout each of the timelines. If this description is confusing it won’t be once you’ve seen the film, in fact the scenes which refer back to the prologue are the more poignant moments and help solidify the films magical take on the way life unravels itself by connecting the memory of the past to the present. Kieslowski also connects the three stories with their end game, each storyline concludes at the airport with a possible flight to Paris which Witek may or may not get on board for. This mutual climatic geography gives the story a sense of the inevitable and lends Blind Chance an extra level of meaning, one which prefers fate rather than choice. Whether Witek catches the train, or doesn’t catch the train his life ultimately leads him to the same place it just takes a different route.

The central performances are very cold for the most part; this is a nation where passions are high but repressed and restrained by the individual in an attempt to be invisible. Drawing attention to oneself is not the most sensible manoeuvre in this type of political climate. However through these withdrawn performances there are a series of very touching and realistic moments, all three of Witek’s sexual encounters are charged with a sort of animal like energy which is restrained and controlled in a bizarre way. Witek at one point saves an old woman from being hit by a car, his act of kindness is rewarded by ignorance. In the first timeline Witek has a fight with a senior party member, this is an excellent scene and a realistic one too, presenting a fight as they often occur, not stylised or choreographed but rough and sloppy.

Visually the beginning of the film is very distinctive and indeed throughout the two hours Kieslowski makes the best usage of locations and a hand-held grittier feel than his later works, the aforementioned first and third person homogenised shots being a prime example of his creative innovations. But in this sense Blind Chance is a mere fragment of the visual genius and splendour of his later works like the Three Colours Trilogy, but here the origins are clear to see. Kieslowski was famously reticent about his work, especially his earlier Polish films, in a book about his career entitled Kieslowski on Kieslowski he only seems less critical about his later work (perhaps because he hadn’t had time to provide them with the same level of deconstruction or perhaps he’d simply mellowed in his old age.) In the same book Kieslowski expressed his dissatisfaction at the film but his overriding passion for it concept: “I think its fundamental flaws lay in the script, as usual. I like the idea to this day; it’s rich and interesting. I just don’t think it was made adequate use of, this idea of three possible endings – that every day we’re faced with a choice which could end our entire life yet of which we’re completely unaware. We don’t ever really know where our fate lies.” The shoot was a troubled one, and from what Kieslowski considered a script flaw emerged a film which at one point in the production he was completely unsatisfied with: “The film wasn’t going all that well. I’d shot about eighty percent. I edited it and realised that it was going in the wrong direction; it was equally inadequate in the way it was being filmed and in the way the idea of the three individual endings was being expressed. It was mechanical. It had been inserted into the film and didn’t give the impression of forming an organic part of the whole.” Luckily in the soviet system there were advantages against Western film making, as money making was not the ultimate goal it didn’t matter if Kieslowski took a couple of months off in the middle of the shoot to refine his work, it also didn’t matter if he re-shot most of the film because at the end of the day the money didn’t belong to anyone, there were no traditional capital investors. It might seem counter intuitive but within the communist system film makers actually had more freedom than their capitalist counterparts; at least during production, getting the film released was an entirely different matter.

Like Ryszard Bugajski’s film Interrogation, Blind Chance was banned upon completion. Although it was filmed in 1981 it wouldn’t be released until 1987. Its portrayal of the communist party is far from damning and unlike Interrogation it doesn’t present an out right attack on the system; however the banning of Blind Chance is not surprising as it does present rather dubious persons in key positions within the party, but more than that the main issue stems from the result of each of Witek’s three contingencies, in both the first and second timeline Witek is basically screwed by the system, in the third timeline this doesn’t occur so directly however through neglect the state could be seen as responsible for the films shocking final scene and therefore indirectly responsible. This rather negative presentation of the status quo gives Blind Chance a political edge which the typically imperious authorities would rather not have presented to the people of Poland. Luckily it survived this repressive regime and can now be enjoyed by audiences across the globe, along with so many other excellent films shot on the east side of the iron curtain.

Kieslowski’s next film No End would feature a ghost haunting his wife and would also take the same naturalistic approach to the fantastic, but with Blind Chance he had his first and very successful attempt to blend real life and magic.

M.Dawson